The idea of a Restoration of Christ’s New Testament “church” was unoriginal

[sock puppet]

MG, You are not replying to the previous posts so I did not copy them.

I think it an error to think one needs some special message to avoid nilism. Life taken in all sorts of ways is full of meaning which is hard to ignore. There have been times in my life when I was convinced there was no God. I saw no reason to think life meaningless. I can think of some hard times which were short of fun or satisfaction. I did not encounter nilism. I think perhaps serious betrayal is needed to arrive at the land where life is a poor player full of sound and fury signifying nothing. I have done some wrong things but perhaps not crossing into that land.

People and ideas might illuminate our connection to life's meaning. Many may help. Many may provide the enjoyment of understanding and learning.

Even the Greatful Dead may add a touch to life.

I think this approach is very apt. And you expressed it very well. The Grateful Dead??? You had me in complete agreement until then. Now, if you had said the Rolling Stones... Ha ha ha.

[PseudoPaul]

However one approaches Jesus, one is left to either worship Him as the Son of God who came to teach the Gospel and redeem mankind from spiritual death and perform the act of resurrection, or to see Him as an ordinary man. If one chooses the historical Jesus without any of the 'add-ons' that the Christian Church added into the mix then one is left to his or herself and/or some other gods to make sense out of the 'purpose of life', so to speak. Of course, if left to oneself a person can make sense out of why they are here by simply going the 'absurd' or 'senseless' route where life essentially has no meaning.

In effect, nihilism.

Is that where your studies have taken you? Or do you subscribe to or hop around a bit experimenting with one tradition or another without getting pinned down to any 'just one'? I'm honestly not trying to 'out' you or poke needles into you for any beliefs/non beliefs that you have. As I've mentioned at other times, I find it interesting/fascinating to find out takes people to the point they find themselves at.

Personally, I think that the apostle Peter may have asked a very important question of Jesus:

Simon Peter replied, ‘Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words of eternal life.’

Where did you go when you learned/decided that Jesus wasn't who you may have at one time thought He was?

Regards,
MG

I don't think Nihilism follows from any historical teachings about Jesus. Nihilism is a way of viewing life - and you can certainly be a nihilist and a theist at the same time. I'm not a nihilist.

So historically speaking Jesus didn't think he was God. But he did think he was a prophet and the future messiah. What he right? Those aren't historical questions. Were Jesus' teachings good? Also not a historical question.

Personally, I think Jesus is a fascinating figure. He had some revolutionary and forward thinking ideas, but some blind spots too. Personally I don't think you can treat any human like they're some infallible authority. Jesus' teachings on egalitarianism, charity and embracing the outcasts are fantastic.

However, Jesus' teachings on family are not so great. But Jesus wasn't thinking about the long term viability of his community. He was expecting an immanent eschaton, like Paul.

Jesus commented on slavery, but never condemned it. That's a blind spot.

Jesus' teachings on adultery and divorce were far more egalitarian than what you find in the Old Testament. Basically in the Old Testament married men could sleep with any woman so long as it wasn't a married woman. Married women, not so much. Jesus made it fair for everyone. However the idea that no one should ever remarry after a divorce doesn't seem to really have any value. It's too extreme (Matthew thought so too because he modified that teaching to give an exception in the case of fidelity).

I still admire Jesus and I think there is much to be learned from his teachings.

[Marcus]

...Jesus' teachings on adultery and divorce were far more egalitarian than what you find in the Old Testament. Basically in the Old Testament married men could sleep with any woman so long as it wasn't a married woman. Married women, not so much. Jesus made it fair for everyone. However the idea that no one should ever remarry after a divorce doesn't seem to really have any value. It's too extreme (Matthew thought so too because he modified that teaching to give an exception in the case of fidelity).

How did Jesus' teachings 'make it fair for everyone'?

[PseudoPaul]

...Jesus' teachings on adultery and divorce were far more egalitarian than what you find in the Old Testament. Basically in the Old Testament married men could sleep with any woman so long as it wasn't a married woman. Married women, not so much. Jesus made it fair for everyone. However the idea that no one should ever remarry after a divorce doesn't seem to really have any value. It's too extreme (Matthew thought so too because he modified that teaching to give an exception in the case of fidelity).

How did Jesus' teachings 'make it fair for everyone'?

By teaching that men could be guilty of adultery for sleeping with other women, or even marrying a second women after a divorce. The standard in the Old Testament for adultery was that adultery wasn't a moral issue, but a property crime. The woman was the property of her husband so a husband cheating on his wife wasn't adultery unless his partner was also married.

Jesus taught that adultery was a moral issue that applied equally to men and women.

[Marcus]

How did Jesus' teachings 'make it fair for everyone'?

The standard in the Old Testament for adultery was that adultery wasn't a moral issue, but a property crime. The woman was the property of her husband so a husband cheating on his wife wasn't adultery unless his partner was also married.

Jesus taught that adultery was a moral issue that applied equally to men and women.

Thanks for your response. I'm curious how you went from "By teaching that men could be guilty of adultery for sleeping with other women, or even marrying a second women after a divorce, "
to interpreting that as an "issue that applied equally to men and women."

I'm not a Bible scholar, so I appreciate you humoring my questions on this, but I don't see Jesus' words as applying equally to men and women when only men's behavior is mentioned.

[Rivendale]

How did Jesus' teachings 'make it fair for everyone'?

By teaching that men could be guilty of adultery for sleeping with other women, or even marrying a second women after a divorce. The standard in the Old Testament for adultery was that adultery wasn't a moral issue, but a property crime. The woman was the property of her husband so a husband cheating on his wife wasn't adultery unless his partner was also married.

Jesus taught that adultery was a moral issue that applied equally to men and women.

Many believers use Biblical polygamy as a justification for Joseph's and others practicing it. Dan McClellan talks about God giving David Sauls wives. I think he said I gave your master's wives. Since women were property is this a commandment to practice it?

[huckelberry]

MG, You are not replying to the previous posts so I did not copy them.

I think it an error to think one needs some special message to avoid nilism. Life taken in all sorts of ways is full of meaning which is hard to ignore. There have been times in my life when I was convinced there was no God. I saw no reason to think life meaningless. I can think of some hard times which were short of fun or satisfaction. I did not encounter nilism. I think perhaps serious betrayal is needed to arrive at the land where life is a poor player full of sound and fury signifying nothing. I have done some wrong things but perhaps not crossing into that land.

People and ideas might illuminate our connection to life's meaning. Many may help. Many may provide the enjoyment of understanding and learning.

Even the Greatful Dead may add a touch to life.

I think this approach is very apt. And you expressed it very well. The Grateful Dead??? You had me in complete agreement until then. Now, if you had said the Rolling Stones... Ha ha ha.

SockPuppet, I certainly see, can't get no,, satisfaction, as reflecting value and meaning in life. My music ears wander and find meaning in a variety of l
Places. Merl Haggard working man blues?

Generally I have not cared much for Mozart though my father exposed me due to his enjoyment. I remember years ago an occasion driving down the Columbia River gorge where it opens into the lush Willamette valley. I happened to be listening to Mozart and at that moment it performed a magical transformation. Mozart can sound stuffy and bland but the music can also do magical transformations opening one's eyes to the expanse of possibilities of life.

[sock puppet]

I think this approach is very apt. And you expressed it very well. The Grateful Dead??? You had me in complete agreement until then. Now, if you had said the Rolling Stones... Ha ha ha.

SockPuppet, I certainly see, can't get no,, satisfaction, as reflecting value and meaning in life. My music ears wander and find meaning in a variety of l
Places. Merl Haggard working man blues?

Generally I have not cared much for Mozart though my father exposed me due to his enjoyment. I remember years ago an occasion driving down the Columbia River gorge where it opens into the lush Willamette valley. I happened to be listening to Mozart and at that moment it performed a magical transformation. Mozart can sound stuffy and bland but the music can also do magical transformations opening one's eyes to the expanse of possibilities of life.

I had the pleasure one night in early March 2006 in Little Rock AR of seeing Merle Haggard open for the Stones. Second row, center seats. It was an amazing night. And unlike the recently deceased Gene Cook, there is lots of evidence available to confirm my "encounter" with Mick Jagger that night, watching from the 2nd row Jagger perform the Devil's Music.

[Limnor]

I think this approach is very apt. And you expressed it very well. The Grateful Dead??? You had me in complete agreement until then. Now, if you had said the Rolling Stones... Ha ha ha.

SockPuppet, I certainly see, can't get no,, satisfaction, as reflecting value and meaning in life. My music ears wander and find meaning in a variety of l
Places. Merl Haggard working man blues?

Generally I have not cared much for Mozart though my father exposed me due to his enjoyment. I remember years ago an occasion driving down the Columbia River gorge where it opens into the lush Willamette valley. I happened to be listening to Mozart and at that moment it performed a magical transformation. Mozart can sound stuffy and bland but the music can also do magical transformations opening one's eyes to the expanse of possibilities of life.

Huck, I really appreciate the imagery here—especially that Mozart moment in the Columbia River gorge. You have a way of describing experiences that seem to sing, almost like meaning rises up out of the setting itself.

If you’re up for it, I’d love to hear a bit more about how you approach meaning these days. Earlier you mentioned stretches when you felt there wasn’t any God at all, and then other times when things felt illuminated again. I’m curious how you make sense of that—no pressure, just genuinely interested in how you hold those shifts together.

And if you’d rather stick with the music angle, I’m all ears there too!

[Limnor]

I don't think Nihilism follows from any historical teachings about Jesus. Nihilism is a way of viewing life - and you can certainly be a nihilist and a theist at the same time. I'm not a nihilist.

So historically speaking Jesus didn't think he was God. But he did think he was a prophet and the future messiah. What he right? Those aren't historical questions. Were Jesus' teachings good? Also not a historical question.

Personally, I think Jesus is a fascinating figure. He had some revolutionary and forward thinking ideas, but some blind spots too. Personally I don't think you can treat any human like they're some infallible authority. Jesus' teachings on egalitarianism, charity and embracing the outcasts are fantastic.

However, Jesus' teachings on family are not so great. But Jesus wasn't thinking about the long term viability of his community. He was expecting an immanent eschaton, like Paul.

Jesus commented on slavery, but never condemned it. That's a blind spot.

Jesus' teachings on adultery and divorce were far more egalitarian than what you find in the Old Testament. Basically in the Old Testament married men could sleep with any woman so long as it wasn't a married woman. Married women, not so much. Jesus made it fair for everyone. However the idea that no one should ever remarry after a divorce doesn't seem to really have any value. It's too extreme (Matthew thought so too because he modified that teaching to give an exception in the case of fidelity).

I still admire Jesus and I think there is much to be learned from his teachings.

PseudoPaul, I’m following your conclusions, but I’m still trying to understand the methodology behind them. When you say things like “Jesus didn’t think he was God,” “he expected an immanent eschaton,” or “he made adultery fair for everyone,” those statements seem to be historical-reconstruction claims that depend on a particular model. Are you working from the apocalyptic-prophet school (Ehrman/Allison/Sanders) or something else?

Related, when you call certain teachings “blind spots,” are you attributing those to the historical Jesus or to the gospel writers’ “layers”? The way you separate authentic sayings from redaction suggests a specific criteria set, and I’d be interested to hear what it is.

Not pushing back—just trying to understand the framework (or Frameplonet if you prefer) you’re using to draw those distinctions.